Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I see no reason to drop that ever, or at least not any time soon.
>>> What is it costing us?
>> Some disk space, so almost nothing. And the potential that people grab
>> it by mistake - it adds a bit to confusion.
> I realize it's not as "official" as the CVS repository was, but I
> still think we ought to hold onto it for a year or two. Maybe no one
> will ever look at it again, but I'm not prepared to bet on that.
I'm with Magnus on this: the risk of confusion seems to greatly
outweigh any possible benefit from keeping it. There is no reason for
anyone to use that old repo unless they are still working with a local
clone of it, and even if they do have a local clone, such a clone is
self-sufficient. And more to the point, it seems quite unlikely that
anyone is still working with such a clone rather than having rebased
by now.
We should wait a week or so to see if anyone does pipe up and say they
still use that repo; but in the absence of such feedback, it should go.
regards, tom lane